The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) most recent official guidance involves the application of federal anti-discrimination laws to employees and applicants who have experienced domestic or dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking. The Q&A Sheet can be found here. Because victims of these offenses are not explicitly protected under federal law, employers may not realize certain employment decisions can run afoul of Title VII (prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex and sex stereotyping, among other categories) or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Examples that…

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review a Seventh Circuit decision involving the definition of a “supervisor” under Title VII. The case, Vance v. Ball State University, could have significant employment law ramifications because “supervisors” automatically subject an employer to vicarious liability for its supervisors’ harassing conduct. Currently, the Seventh Circuit requires that employees have the authority “to hire, fire, demote, promote, transfer, or discipline an employee” to be considered a supervisor. This bright-line, narrow definition ensures that alleged supervisors have…

Although federal courts are divided on the issue, recent case law seems to be trending toward holding the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) accountable for complying with the normal requirement under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that administrative charges must be filed within 300 days (or 180 days where there is no state agency equivalent to the EEOC) of the discriminatory event. In the latest case to weigh in on the issue, the District of New Jersey dismissed all potential claims…

S.B. 383, which can be found here, was introduced earlier this week in the Ohio state Senate and seeks drastic change to Ohio’s state employment bias laws. Specifically, if the legislation were to be passed and enacted in its current form, a number of employer-friendly revisions would be made. Included among those proposed changes are: 1. a requirement that an employee opt to choose either to file an administrative charge with the Ohio Civil Rights Commission or to file a complaint in court (as opposed…

Earlier this week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the employer and two individual defendants in an eavesdropping claim brought by a former employee, who was fired after making a threatening telephone call to a colleague at his home. In Carroll v. Merrill Lynch, the plaintiff, Mary Carroll, was fired as a result of her conduct during a phone call with her co-worker, Jim Kelliher, whom she called at his home on Thanksgiving night. Upon hearing the exchange…

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an Illinois police officer’s petition for review of whether the Seventh Amendment’s right to jury trial is violated when a federal court grants an employer’s motion for summary judgment (Kidwell v. Eisenhauer, U.S., No. 12-226, cert. denied Oct. 15, 2012). Kenneth Kidwell, the petitioner and an Illinois police officer, alleged he was terminated as a result of his criticisms of the police department’s management. Kidwell argued this was in violation of his First Amendment rights. Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit disagreed…

A congressional investigation has been initiated in response to the Obama administration’s guidance advising defense contractors not to issue budget-driven layoff notices in accordance with federal WARN Act provisions. The investigation, lead by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), who serves as the Chair of the U.S. House of Representatives’ Oversight Committee, seeks correspondence between the White House and various defense firms to determine whether any guidance issued runs afoul of WARN Act requirements and encourages contractors to disregard employment laws. Specifically, with the upcoming November elections,…

Earlier this year, the Ohio Supreme Court surprised observers in the Acordia of Ohio LLC v. Fishel case by holding that an acquiring company in a statutory merger could not enforce noncompetes entered into with the acquired company by employees who continued to be employed absent clear contractual agreement to that. Today, the Court in effect reversed itself, coming back into line with the great majority of the states. A summary from the court can be found here. Historically, in a corporate merger where the acquirer buys…

While we typically defer to the BT Labor Relations Blog when it comes to analysis of “traditional labor” matters, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) decision in Federal Security, Inc. is worth mentioning here. Federal Security provides armed security guards to public housing sites in Chicago. The Company fired 19 of its security guards after they staged a “walk out.” The guards subsequently filed an unfair labor practice charge alleging their walk out was “protected concerted activity” under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (i.e., the right for employees to act together…

The NLRB issued its first decision on a social media policy on Sept. 7, 2012 (Costco Wholesale Corp.) finding the employer’s policy of preventing employees from posting statements that “damage the Company, defame any individual or damage any person’s reputation” as being unlawful. This was to be expected given the ever expanding interpretations of the NLRB’s General Counsel set forth in his three prior Guidance Memoranda on social media policies. However, on Sept. 28, 2012, the NLRB ruled on its first social media termination case and…